Department of History

This article is analyzed by two reviewers and it is screened for the resemblance rate by the editor/ Bu makale iki hakem tarafından incelenmiş ve editör tarafından benzerlik oranı taramasından geçirilmiştir. * In this article, the principles of scientific research and publication ethics were followed/ Bu makalede bilimsel araştırma ve yayın etiği ilkelerine uyulmuştur. * This work is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 2.0 (Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike).

Kitabın Söyleşiler kısmında yazarın genel olarak şahsi yaşamı, eğitim hayatı, akademik kariyer tecrübeleri, tarih anlayışı, popüler ve akademik manada Osmanlı tarihinin tartışmalı hususları hakkındaki mülahazaları ve yer aldığı çeşitli projeleri hakkında gerçekleştirdiği mülakatlar bulunmaktadır. Kitabın ikinci kısmında Osmanlı tarihi üzerine dünyada ve Türkiye'de meydana gelen ilmi tartışmalar hakkındaki yazarın kanaatine ve katkılarına yer verilmiş olup, ilk Osmanlı kaynaklarından bir örnekle metodolojik bir değerlendirmeye ve teşkil edilecek bir kent müzesinin tematik oluşumuna dair önerilerine yer verilmiştir. Kitabın Portreler adı altında üçüncü kısmında ise bir yandan yazarın eğitimine ve akademik 

Apar adı, kaynaklarda Aparnoi veya Parni olarak zikredilmektedir. Bunların ise Sakaların bir kolu olarak Klasik Latin ve Hellen kaynaklarında zikredilen Dahae'lerle bir alâkası olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Herodotos'tan beri kaynaklarda farklı şekillerde bahsedilen Dahae'ler, M.Ö. IV. yüzyıldan itibaren Hazar Denizi ile daha doğudaki Oxus ırmağı arasına yerleşerek buradan sonraki dönemlerde daha batıya, Hazar'ın kuzey-doğu kıyı bölgesine yerleşmişler ve M.Ö. III. yüzyılın ikinci yarısında Parth Devleti'nin temelini oluşturmuşlardır. Ortaçağ'daki Dahistan veya Dihistan yer adının bunlardan geldiği bilinmektedir. Orta-Asya'nın batısında ve İran'da Hellenistik bir krallık olan Parth Devleti'ni, aslında Arşak sülalesi kurmuştu. Kısa süre içerisinde İran'ın tamamını ve Türkiye'nin de Doğu ve Güney-Doğu Bölgesi'nin bir kısmını ele geçiren Parth'lar, batıda Roma İmparatorluğu'nun da en büyük rakiplerinden biri olmuşlardır. Devletlerini kurdukları bölge olan, Ortaçağ'daki adıyla Horasan Bölgesi, muhtemelen, onların uzak geçmişteki atalarından dolayı bu dönemde Aparşahr (Apar Ülkesi) olarak anılmıştır. Fakat Parth'lardan sonra M.S. V. yüzyılın başlarında Heftalitler, Orta-Asya'nın büyük kısmı, Kuzey Hindistan ve İran'ın doğu bölümlerini de içine alan büyük bir imparatorluk kurdular. Bunlar zamanında da bölgenin adı "Apar Ülkesi" idi. Türk ve Ermeni kaynaklarında "Apar" olarak zikredilen bu ismin, Çin kaynaklarında bazan Hua (< Awar/Abar/Apar) şeklinde zikredilen Heftalitler ile de bağlantısı olduğu anlaşılıyor.

Moses Khorenatsi is among the most important figures of Armenian History. Due to the impact of the History of Armenians, written by Khorenatsi, on the national awakening of Armenians, Khorenatsi may be is considered to be the father of Armenian history (Patmahayr) like Herodotus who was called as the father of history by Cicero. Armenians did not have their own language, religion and the national consciousness until late antiquity, but thanks to the work of Moses Khorenatsi, Armenian thought gained a mythological perspective. Khorenatsi wrote his work in Armenian and so he made a strong contribution to Armenian Language formed by the acceptance of Christianity under the leadership of Tiridates the Great in 4th Century.
Each society has got customs, which has been attributed their own background of their society, on the legend and mythology. Moses Khorenatsi has been one of the names who have taken on the duty for establishing the early history of Armenians. Because of this, Khorenatsi’s work has the most important peculiarity that makes it different from the other Armenian Histories; it is clear that, the mythological elements of the work has given help to the process of becoming a nation for the Armenians. This study, which will deal with the work of Khorenatsi from the mythological point of view, is going to investigate the question that at what level Moses Khorenatsi has helped the transformation of the Armenians into a nation.

The eastern territories of the Roman Empire, at the beginning of the third century, witnessed to the rise of the Sassanid Empire, which succeeded the Dynasty of Parthians. Like the Parthians, the Sassanids were continuously hostile with the
Romans. For this reason long-lasting wars took place between the Romans and Sassanids throughout the centuries. In this process, a Roman Emperor, Valerianus, was killed in captivity. Although between the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth century the balance of power changed in favor of the Romans, when Constantine the Great died in 337, superiority of Romans come to an end. After this date, Constantius II took over the administration of the eastern lands of the Roman Empire. Meanwhile Shapur II, the longest reigning monarch of the Sassanid dynasty, was ruling the Sassanid Empire. The wars between Constantius II and Shapur II gained a different dimension when Constantius II died. Ongoing battle under dominance of Iulianus, when Iovianus came to power, completely stopped and protracted war turned into peace.
The main objective of this study is to emphasis on the historical Context of the war between Constantius II and Shapur II and to examine the changing ideology of Romans and also Sasanians after the peace.

The acceptance of Christianity by Armenians, at the beginning of the fourth century, has had profound effects on Armenian society. After the adoption of Christianity, Armenians not only have moved away from the impact of Iranian culture but also have escaped the influence of the Roman Empire and thus they have built their own church models. The making of Armenian Christianity and the institutionalization phase of the Armenian Church caused conflicts due to the fact that Armenian Church was under the control of the aristocracy and had accepted a management based on the lineage of the St. Grigor (Gregory the Illuminator), unlike the decisions taken at the Council of Nicaea. In 370, after the king Pap has chosen the catholicos, “The Aristocratic Armenian Church” initially moved away from the archbishop of Caesarea (=Caesarea in Cappadocia) and then, after the invention of the Armenian and the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, almost completely separated from the Constantinople Church. To lose the power of these two centers and fight them over time has triggered the formation of the Armenian Church. Therefore, Armenian synod gathered under the leadership of catholicos St. Nerses I, in 365, was supported by other synods gathered in the fifth and sixth century and this revealed the independent character of the Armenian Church. In the light of this historical process, the main purpose of this study is to determine on what conditions the establishment and institutionalization phases of the Armenian Church.

The Iranian civilization, which was the basis of the Armenian culture until the Conversion to Christianity, was far from the historiographic tradition in comparison to Greeks and Romans even if they portrayed their own history by means of reliefs. In this respect, there is a cultural affinity between the absence of historiography before Christianity in the Armenian society and the absence of the literary tradition in pre-Islamic Iran. However, this cultural relationship, which lasted until the fourth century, modified after the adoption of Christianity by the Armenians and caused to emerge the idea of historiography among the Armenians. Thus, there is a parallel between the beginning of the custom of historiography and the acceptance of Christianity in the Armenian society. The general structure of the Armenian historiography, originally based on patristic roots, was shaped after the Battle of Vartanants (Avarayr) in 451 and turned into an ideological struggle for Armenians. This idea shows that the Armenians tend to create historical depth and common destiny in the late antiquity. Following this, the collapse of the Sassanid Empire and the arrival of Muslims to the world of Armenians naturally opened a new era in Armenian historiography. This period was built directly on the idea of "opposition" and "other". This study aims to establish a direct connection between the acceptance of Christianity by Armenians and the start of historiography tradition by the intellectual Armenians and examine the reasons why historiography flourished for Armenians.

After the fall of the Sāsānian Empire, Armenians under Arab pressure asked for help from the Roman emperor. Constans II, whereupon, declared Tʿēodoros Ṙštuni as patrik and then tried to tie the Armenian Church to Constantinople. Armenians, however, rejected the attempt and formed an alliance with Arabs. Sebēos, Armenian historian and bishop noted, “All the Armenian princes made a pact with death and contracted an alliance with hell”. In this context, the purpose of this study is to indicate the choice of Tʿēodoros Ṙštuni between two poles, to emphasize the historical context of this “alliance with hell” and to examine the gains and losses of the Armenians after this pact

Bütün bir Armenia coğrafyasının çizgisel olarak Ermeni literatürüne girmesi ilk defa VII. yüzyılın başlarına tarihlendirilen ve gerçekte varlığı hala tartışmalı olan Anania Širakacʿi isimli bir Ermeni entelektüelinin başarısıdır. Ermeni tarih yazıcılığı içinde ayrı bir yere sahip olan Anania Širakacʿi, VII. yüzyıla kadar Ermeni literatürüne konu olmayan Armenia’nın coğrafî sınırlarını tarafsız bir gözlemden uzak olmasına rağmen ayrıntılı bir şekilde not etmiştir. Anania Širakacʿi’nin antik Yunan ve İran kaynaklarından haberdar olmasında ve bu bilgi düzeyine erişmesinde eğitim gördüğü çeşitli kentlerin ardından geldiği Trabzon’un da önemli bir etkisi olmuştur. Nitekim geleneksel kabule göre Anania Širakacʿi, eğitiminin önemli bir kısmını Trabzon’daki Aziz Eugenius Kilisesi’nin bünyesinde bulunan ve Tychicus ismiyle anılan Trabzon asıllı bir bilgenin yanında almıştır. Trabzon’da kaldığı sekiz yılın ardından Armenia’ya dönen Anania Širakacʿi, muhtemelen burada bir okul kurarak muhtelif zamanlarda Armenia ve komşu coğrafyaların ele alındığı Coğrafya adlı eserini yazmıştır. Bu kısa çalışma Anania Širakacʿi’ye atfedilen Armenia’nın ilk ve en geniş coğrafya çalışmasının ortaya çıkmasında Trabzonlu entelektüel Tychicus’un önemli bir etkisinin olup olmadığını tartışmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Armenia, tarih boyunca üzerinde yaşayan toplulukların çeşitli geleneklerinden ve coğrafyanın siyasi açıdan getirdiği istikrarsızlıktan ötürü çok farklı etnik kökene ve kültüre ev sahipliği yapmıştır. Fakat bölgenin bu çok kültürlü yapısının genel literatürde derinlemesine irdelenmemesi bölge insanlarının toplu bir bakış açısıyla ve daha çok toponim açıdan Ermeni olarak değerlendirilmeleri sonucunu doğurmuştur. Ne var ki çok dilli ve etnik kökenli Armenia bölgesindeki doğal yaşamın bir parçası olan feodal anlayışı meydana getiren pek çok soylu aile, V. yüzyıldan sonra oluşan antik Ermeni metinlerinde dahi birçok farklı soy hikâyesiyle ilişkilendirilmiştir. Bu bağlamda geç antik çağ boyunca bölge halklarının toponim yerine etnonim olarak incelemeye tabi tutulması, bölgede yaşayan insanların bazılarının Armenialı bazılarının da Ermeni olarak adlandırılabileceğini göstermektedir. Bilhassa eponim adlandırmalar ve köken ilişkisinde Hristiyanlık sonrası Armenia’nın soy arayışının getirdiği kültürel yenileşme de önemli bir yer tutmaktadır. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma, Armenialı olmaktan çıkarak Ermeni adıyla anılan bölge halklarını meydana getiren alt etkenleri, yeni kimliğin üzerine inşa edildiği toplumsal yapıyı ve naxarar olarak adlandırılan soyluların gerçekte hangi kökenlere uzandığını tartışmayı amaçlamaktadır. / Ancient Armenia, throughout history, has hosted many different ethnic origins and cultures due to the various traditions of the communities living on it and the political instability of the geography. The fact that this multicultural structure of the region does not examine in depth in the general literature has resulted in the people of the region being evaluated as Armenian from a collective and mostly from a toponym point of view. However, many noble families that formed the feudal understanding, which was a part of the natural life in the multilingual and ethnic Armenia, were associated with many different ancestry stories even in ancient Armenian texts formed after the 5th century. In this context, the fact that examination of the peoples of the region as ethnonym rather than toponym during the late antiquity shows that some of the communities living in the region can be called people of Armenia and some Armenian. The cultural innovation, especially, brought about by the search for the lineage of Armenia after Christianity has an important place in the eponym naming and origin relationship. Therefore, this study aims to discuss the sub-factors that created the peoples of the region called Armenian rather than being people of Armenian, the social structure on which the new identity was built, and the origins of the nobles called naxarar.

The rapid development of the Armenian historiography, which started at the beginning of the 5th century, can be seen in many different kinds of works on ancient and medieval Armenian literature. The Armenian sources after the 7th century, when the works, reflected from the Roman world, lost their influence or interest and the fall of the Sasanian Empire, one of the two empires standing “on one foot”, considered Muslims as a new society. During the first centuries the information and view about Muslims in the works of Armenian writers such as Sebēos, Łewond ve Aristakēs Lastivercʿi mainly were based on the idea of “humiliation” and “other”. This notion can be intelligible in the Christian Armenian historiography but the more interesting theme is that Armenians neither, detailed nor give accurate information about Muslims even in the 12th or 14th centuries. Indeed, it is surprising that an Armenian source called Pseudo-Šapuh or Anonymous depicted Mēhēmēt the prophet as an “Iranian” rather than an Arab. This situation raises the question what Armenians actually knew about the Muslims at that period. The purpose of this study is to discuss whether the Pseudo-Šapuh or Anonymous Story was intentionally or incorrectly interpreted the portrayal of Mēhēmēt the prophet as an Iranian, considering the harmony and nonconformity between the classical Armenian sources.

The first touchstone that comes to mind when considering the tradition of biographical writing in ancient literature is Plutarch's Parallel Lives, although he was not the earliest example of this method. Much later, came the Vita Constantini, a panegyric written by the church historian Eusebius in honour of the Emperor Constantine, and Athanasius' Vita Antonii. Moreover, further east, a patristic and encomiastic Armenian biographical tradition exists, albeit partly obscured in Armenian literature and overlooked by ancient authors. Surprisingly, existing literature has not dedicated sufficient attention to the transmission of literature between the East and West, despite the likelihood that the first written Armenian text was a biography. Therefore, this study will discuss the extent to which Armenian literature was influenced by its Roman predecessors in the biographical tradition, especially those who wrote in Greek, and how this tradition was shaped in Armenian literature.

The epithet apostate is one of the most striking terms among symbolic characters of late antiquity. It has been applied to only Iulianus and described his paganist practices. Yet, there is another character from the same era that modern literature has left in the dark. After just seven years of Iulianus' death, Pap, the Armenian king, was labelled as impious by Armenian sources like the characterization of Iulianus by Roman Christians. Keeping these under consideration, this study aims to reexamine whether Pap could be named as a second apostate and to conclude that this was a unilateral glance.

Manzikert, located in the southern regions of Armenia, has consistently held a significant place in the literature of various communities from ancient times to the medieval period. This importance is attributed to the multidimensional nature of Manzikert from geographical, political, and religious perspectives, as well as its comprehensive influence on the surrounding historical trajectory. The geographical analysis of the region encompasses the etymological extensions of names, revealing the linguistic complexity that has influenced the various ways Manzikert is named in Armenian texts, primarily as Taron. From a political standpoint, the history of Manzikert unfolds through the region’s feudal structure and the power balance between dominant forces such as Rome and Iran. The rise and fall of powerful feudal families, especially the Manawazean and Mamikonean dynasties, have shaped the political landscape of Manzikert. Undoubtedly, the significance of the city transcends the political realm; Manzikert embodies a centre for cultural and religious interactions between Armenian and Syriac traditions. This region emerges as a crucial centre for the south-to-north spread of Christianity in Armenia. Therefore, the aim of this study is not only to understand the political importance of Manzikert but also to explore its religious significance and discuss its relationship with Armenian Christianity.

During late antiquity, the geographical boundaries of Armenia underwent frequent changes due to power dynamics between the Romans and the Sasanians. Therefore, it is impossible to speak of a broad Armenian geography with a single window encompassing every century. However, despite this, few studies on the subject generally assume that Armenia had the same borders in every century, neglecting the historical context. Particularly, the geographical model drawn by Anania Širakacʿi in the 7th century has become generally accepted in modern studies. However, the Armenia region had dynamic and variable boundaries throughout the late antique period due to its political position. The determination of these boundaries is extremely difficult owing to factors such as the rugged nature of the geography, the distant placement of settlements from each other, and the lack of widespread urbanization. Moreover, political struggles with Rome to the west, Iran to the south, Albania to the east, and Iberia to the northeast, especially contributed to the instability of borders and even the constant changing of the names of settlements.
Hence, the goal of this study is to emphasize the continuously changing borders of Armenia with a chronological perspective, taking into account the historical context, and to consider the historical geography of Armenia in late antiquity.

This study explores the intricate political and religious dynamics that shaped Armenia during the fourth century, focusing on the impact of Roman and Sasanian imperial interventions and the internal divisions within Armenia. The division of Armenia into Roman and Sasanian spheres following the agreements of 387 resulted in a bifurcated political structure, with significant implications for the region's stability. The rivalry among local aristocratic families, known as naxarars, played a crucial role in this fragmentation, as their shifting loyalties and internal conflicts facilitated external manipulation by both empires. Additionally, the religious conflict between Christianity and Zoroastrianism further complicated the political landscape, contributing to the erosion of centralized control and exacerbating internal strife. The study examines how these factors combined to influence the political trajectory of Armenia, from the internal struggles during the reign of King Tiridates to the eventual consolidation of Sasanian's control under Vramšapuh. By analyzing these dynamics, this research highlights the complex interplay of internal and external forces that defined Armenia's historical trajectory in this period, offering insights into the broader implications of imperial rivalry and religious conflict in shaping regional politics.